[Open Design + Hardware] Open Design Definition @ OKFestival 2014

Sat May 24 16:18:35 UTC 2014

Il 12/05/14 22:56, Dr. Peter Troxler ha scritto:
> Expanding on that: Alastair Fuad-Luke reports finding it hard to involve fashion designers in an “open fashion” project (despite fashion recognized as a “low-ip” field of design, [1]).  At various conferences I found designers blurring or even confusing their role of social activists and professional designers in social interventions (most recently at the Cumulus conference in Aveiro, PT).
>

In my lecturing experience, I haven't found any problems in motivating 
the students in releasing their project as open source (and the students 
were mostly designers but with different backgrounds). Only one person 
did not want to realease a 700 Mb file. It maybe depends on many 
factors, but often there are questions regarding IP and Open Design, so 
this is an important topic.

> I am arguing (in a model developed with colleagues) that “open” has two dimensions, open access and open contribution and that the discussion on open design has been focused too much on the “access” dimension and not sufficiently on the “contribution” dimension — or in more detail: that the contribution dimension stops at “co-design” or any other designer-led format but fails to develop “open design” beyond a situation where designers are not in the lead (for the sake of the argument I understand “facilitation” as “lead”).  Imho, in a real open design situation designers should only provide the methods, but not apply/execute them (facilitation).

I agree on the difference between "open access" and "open contribution", 
this is something that we can add to the definition. At the moment I 
just added a quick note to the design process part: feel free to commet 
here with an e-mail or on the link, I will bring it to the definition:
https://github.com/OpenDesign-WorkingGroup/Open-Design-Definition/commit/03c2d543242fed0d8e999b79d96c6671b46406a6

Personally, I've always been interested in making Open Design the 
outcome of a collaborative process, rather than a single person project 
(but both are possible so both should be part of the definition), so I 
agree on the difference between access and contribution (the whole open 
p2p design first and open metadesign rearch later focuses on making a 
collaborative participation in the open design process possible).

Regarding the idea that designers should only facilitate and not really 
work in open design projects: this is an interesting point that needs 
further discussion and research (I don't agree at the moment: Open 
Design should also be for designers! Maybe the problem lays in finding 
the right motivations for them to participate in Open Design). But 
regardless of the opinion, both possibilities should be in the definition.

How can we expand this in the definition?

Massimo

-- 
______________________________________________________________________________
Massimo Menichinelli
mobile: (ITA) +39 3402971655
Skype: openp2pdesign.org
http://it.linkedin.com/in/massimomenichinelli
openp2pdesign.org
Metadesign for Open Systems, Processes, Projects
http://www.openp2pdesign.org/
______________________________________________________________________________